[awm]

Where does style give way to system? Honestly I'd rather get full disclosure of opponents "style" even if this is different from player to player, than require them to play the same "system" and then let them off the hook with regard to disclosing style. Some examples of what I mean:

(1) Suppose you agree to open "good four card majors." In other words, holding many distributions there's a choice of opening 1M or 1m, and this choice is supposed to be made based on suit quality. A number of ACOL players play like this and it's quite reasonable -- open chunky four card majors where you'd be happy playing 2M in a 4-3, or where you have an easy rebid (i.e. 18-19 balanced), but bid a convenient minor instead of a lousy major. But what if one partner essentially NEVER opens a four-card major unless it's AKQJ, and the other opens four-card majors pretty freely as long as he has one of the top three honors. Style or system? What do opponents get to know?

(2) Suppose you agree to play 15-17 notrumps. But one player frequently upgrades "good 14s" (i.e. with a five card suit or several tens) and "good 17s". The other player frequently downgrades "bad 15s" (no five card suit, or no aces, etc) and "bad 18s". So really one player is opening 14-16 and the other is opening 16-18 most of the time. Style or system? The card just says 15-17....

As long as this kind of thing is regarded as an "illegal agreement" it's basically impossible for opponents to disclose it even if they wanted to because they could be accused of having an illegal agreement. So they have to treat it as "just style" and not put it on their convention card, and probably not tell anyone unless specifically asked about style (and how would anyone know to ask?).

Personally I'd rather know what people normally do and what partner is expecting, rather than some set of "general agreements" that are violated more often than not.

[kenberg]

mycroft, on Aug 16 2005, 01:43 PM, said:

And as for the "pro shutting up client" story, that's why Law 72B2 and Law 23 are in the book.

And Law 23, quoted earlier by Mycroft, also refers to Law 72B1 which I suppose is closely linked to Law 72B2 which you cite. Some comments.

When the insufficient bid was first made, I took the event at face value. Since it seemed obvious the intended bid was 3H, it seemed like a waste of time to summon the director who would explain that if the call was changed to 3H there would be no penalty. I know, we are supposed to always summon the director but we are also supposed to finish hands on time and these two items are not always compatible.

If I summoned the director he would indeed have barred the client from bidding. Then I would need to summon the director back at the end of the hand and try to convince him that we were entitled to a score of 3HX down 2. This is very iffy, requires time, requires a director familiar with the above rules (which I am only vaguely aware of and would not be able to quote or refer to), and a director willing to take on a shouting pro. If anyone thinks it is clear that I would win my case, I can only say that their experiences with directors, and I am not restricting this to club directors at all, is different than mine. It presumably would have led to much shouting and arguing and probably a committee hearing, thereby angering my wife when I arrived home late for dinner.

And finally, and perhaps most important, the route I took gave the client the opportunity to voluntarily take the ethical action. There comes a time when a guy must decide if he wants to pay someone to make him look like a slimeball.